FT MEADE 


4BX 
1520 
Copy 1 

ftP® SAIL JfcBTKHKBs' 

OF THE 

PRESBYTERY OF LEXINGTON, 


ADDRESSED 



TO THIS CHURCHES; 

UNDER THEIR CARE. 


1 PRESBYTERY.* 


Spectator ©eftcc 

STAUNTON. 

1827 . 





t* 





































X 








A'. 






( 














r\ 




<*>*,4*- 

' ' v 








r * 





. 


; \v ;V 




«V 


V' . >•- v/ 






.. 

. 


• V 








1 . 












1 


■ 'f 




























/ . 


4 $ 


'f 




f V 


>•-* -I 1 ; 






















. 

• • ' • •<-< 












































V> 






















































' 









•v- 














X 










X 


* 












• .. > 






isao 



ADDRESSED BY THE PRESBYTERY OF LEXINGTON T$ 
THE CHURCHES UNDER THEIR CARE. 



DEAR BRETHREN, 


OCTOBER 20, 1827. 


BEING appointed to watch for your spiritual 
interests, we think it our duty at this time to address you in a pastoral 
letter of more than usual length. The churches in our presbytery are 
mostly in a languishing state. While other regions are visited with fre- 
quent revivals, and stirred up to a diligent practice and a vigorous pro- 
motion of the gospel, we have fallen into a general coldness, and have 
experienced a long suspension of divine influences. In some places, 
death, emigration, and apostacy have diminished the number of church 
members more than the means of grace have increased it. In short, 
some of our wisest and most experienced men think they see amongst us 
the symptoms of a long and fatal decline. Still, however, w’e rest on 
one ground of hope and consolation. Our churches, w T e believe, con- 
tain many sincere children of God, who have an interest at the throne of 
grace, and daily supplicate the Father of Mercies for a blessing on our 
public ordinances, and for an effusion of the spirit upon our churches. 
Therefore, w T e trust that we shall not be finally deserted ; though we 
may suffer a severe chastisement for our abuse of past favours and pre- 
sent privileges. 


Judging from the history of former ages, we apprehend that the two 
most alarming symptoms in a church are : 1 . the omission or negligent 
performance of duty ; and 2. a departure from sound doctrine according 
>to the scriptures. 

l.The omission or negligentperformance of duty weakens the pious feel- 
ings of the heart ; wounds, and then hardens the conscience ; ©pens the 
door for temptation and delusion; offends God, and grieves his Holy Spi- 
rit ; and, when it becomes general in a church, bring* on a crisis which 
must soon terminate either in a revival of penitence and zeal, or in a fatal 
breaking up of the church. RcmembcT ouy Saviours warning to the. 
dhurqh of Laodicea. 


2. A departure from sound .doctrine however, appears from history to 
he yet more dangerous. While the pure and sanctifying truths of 
the gospel are retained, there still exists a principle of life, from which a 
decayed piety may be restored to health and vigour. But when the 
truth itself is materially corrupted, and the gospel of the Son of God turn- 
ed into a system of human inventions, religion is poisoned at the fountain- 
head. Few, if any instances are on record of churches having recovered 
after drinking deeply into the spirit of error. 

Whether our churches are most in danger from lukewarmness, or 
from error, we shall not undertake to say : but we would earnestly ad- 
monish our beloved flocks (o be on their guard, as 'those that watch for 
their lives, against both the evils we have mentioned. 

We are persuaded, brethren, that our church in her public standards, 
professes the purp Christianity of the Bible. We pretend not that every 
expression in those standards is precisely correct, as if given by inspira- 
tion. W e claim not a popish infallibility for our judgments; nor for those 
of the reformers, of blessed memory, whose system of doctrines we hold 
unchanged. But our belief of these doctrines is confirmed not only by 
our examination of the word of God, but by the experience of their effi- 
cacy for three hundred years, in keeping up a sober and practical piety 
wherever they have been sincerely professed. No opposing system of 
doctrines has for ages maintained so steady and so purifying an influence 
over the human mind. Other systems have lead either to empty formal- 
ism, dark superstition, or w 7 ild fanaticism ; while the system of Luther, 
Zuinglius, and Calvin, as professed by the Presbyterian and other church- 
es, has always overcome the temporary influence of formalism, supersti- 
tion, and fanaticism ; except where, in the reckless pursuit of novelty, 
men have abandoned the system itself. 

Yet no form of Christianity, perhaps, has had to encounter such obsti- 
nate prejudices, and such violent attacks from all quarters. In our own 
age and country, and within the bounds of this Presbytery, we have 
witnessed what would seem to be a concerted and resolute effort to des- 
troy our church. Means, both open and concealed, both ordinary and ex- 
traordinary, have been put in requisition to render us odious and unpop- 
ular. At least, several things have lately occurred, and arc likely to oc- 
cur again, which seem to manifest a .spirit of implacable hostility "against 
our doctrines and institutions. 

J ustice to ourselves, and faithfulness to what we believe to be the cause 
of truth and piety, call upon us at length to break silence; to lay aside 
false delicacy ; and to expostulate frankly with our chief opponents. .You 
too, brethren, we must affectionately warn of these attempts, and endea- 
vour to fortify your minds against them. 

Most of you, from your knowledge of facts, already understand that wo 
allude to a society whom, as Christians, we would love, but against whom, 
as persevering assailants, we must at length defend ourselves ; we mean 
the Methodists. But we wish you and them to know that we complain 


not of any fair arguments which they have used against our doctrines: 
we complain of the line of policy wliich they sc em to have adopted, which 
certainly they have, too often pursued respecting us. 

Harmony and fellowship cannot subsist between two religious denom- 
inations', unless they treat each other with. decent respect, argue their 
differences candidly and temperately, and pursue towards each other an 
open, fair, and friendly line of conduct. \V6 often hear friendly profes- 
sions from the Methodists ; sometimes wer experience friendly acts, and 
rejoice in them. We have wished to live .‘with that society on terms of 
mutual forbearance and reciprocal kindness. But how frequently, in the 
midst of then charitable professions, have even their pulpits resounded in 
various places, with severe denunciations against us ; representing us as 
a sot of hypocritical formalists, as holding doctrines which came from, 
hell, and lead to hell ! Have they not, times innumerable, reviled our mi- 
nisters os avaricious hirelings? Have they not taken up scandalous state- 
ments against ministers, ekiers, and people of our church, and circulated 
them in a printed form, with all the zeal of a Tract Society ? Statements 
too, which bore marks of the author’s injustice and malignity on the face 
of them? Can we more in brotherly concert with a society whose pro- 
fessions of friendship are mingled with acts like these ? 

We allude not to these things for the purpose of provoking an open 
rupture, and an angry controversy. Our aim is, if possible, to prevent 
such a deplorable issue by a candid exposition of our sentiments. May 
we not hope that the more liberal and considerate portion of that society 
will, when they hear of our wounded feelings, exert a salutary influence 
on their brethren; and check a course of conduct which, if continued, 
must lead to consequences that every good Christian should depre- 
cate ? 

But if our well intended remonstrance have no such desirable effect ; 
if that society are resolved to prosecute hostilities ; then our next wish is 
that it may no longer be a war in disguise, but that our remonstrance 
may produce from them an open declaration of their intentions respect- 
ing our church. If they have wrought themselves into the opinion that 
the Presbyterian and other like churches, must be put down, in order 
that they may substitute a better form of religion, let them boldly say so 
at once. We shall then know both how to estimate them and how to 
meet therm 

We shall know how to estimate them. As matters now stand, we are 
doubtful what to think of their character and designs; holding out, as 
they do, at onetime and place, the right hand of fellowship.; at another, 
the sword of battle. If they candidly declare their intention, under a 
sense of duty, to destroy our church, though we may think their views 
illiberal, and their measures harsh, we can nevertheless give them cre- 
dit for honest intentions and fair dealing. 

Then, too, we shall know how to meet them. We shall go without 
hesitation, and without complaint, into the held of fair controversy ; and 


6 - 


either prove that our doctrines and institutions are more scriptural than 
theirs, or consent to give up the cause, and lot Methodism rule the world. 

They owe it not only to us, but to other denominations, to expluin 
their views. The frequent appearance of double dealing in their policy 
towards others ; the proselyting spirit which they often manifest ; their 
exultation when they make a breach into other churches ; their constant 
attempts to form societies in the heart of congregations fully supplied 
with the means of grace; their apparent eagerness to swell and magnify 
their numbers, and the exceedingly easy terms on which they enrol 
members ; the occasional boasts made even in their public assemblies 
that the Methodists will “take the world these and other things have 
infused a general suspicion of their harbouring ambitious designs. No- 
thing short of a disavowal of such designs, and a correspondent change of 
conduct, can remove the suspicion. We do not, by these remarks, mean 
to accuse them of aiming at universal domination in spiritual affairs : we 
mention suspicious circumstances in order to give them occasion for ex- 
planations. 

While they pursue a doubtful and unfriendly course towards others, the 
general cause of religion suffers : jealousies, heart-burnings, and colli- 
sions disturb the harmonious movement of the Christian world against the 
common enemy. This consequence of the sectarian spirit, we believe ma- 
ny of their own pious members wish to avoid. Once more, then, we say, 
let there be candid explanations, and an undisguised line of policy on their 
part. Our sentiments and conduct have been open and easily under- 
stood. We desire peace while it can be justly maintained; and Chris- 
tian fellowship with all who love the Lord Jesus Christ insincerity. 

Having thus frankly declared ourselves on a very disagreeable subject, 
we shall proceed to another purpose of this letter, which is to furnish you 
with a brief explanation and defence of somedoctrines of our church, which 
are most frequently assailed and grossly misrepresented. It would not 
be possible in the compass of a letter to notice all the points of contro- 
versy in the case ; but we hope a few words on the subject may pot be 
unprofitable. 

The doctrine which seems to have been most obnoxious, and most vio* 
lently assailed, is that of tiie divine decrees, comprehending the de- 
cree OF ELECTION'. 

As to the decree of election, the argument seems to be condensed into 
a very narrow' space by the question of the Apostle Paul, “Who maketh 
thee "to differ, or w'hat hast thou that thou hast not received?” Or in o- 
ther words the whole argument seems to resolve itself into this question 
whether the real, efficient power of converting sinners be in God or in 
creatures? If God converts the sinner, we presume it will be admitted 
that he knew beforehand, or that he knew and determined from all eterni- 
ty whom he wmuld convert : and this would constitute the doctrine of e- 
lection. The argument, then, is brought to a speedy close, if it be ad- 
mitted that God, and God only, caii convert the sinner ; and we certainly 




supposed that all Christians admitted this. For if God does not eonverfc- 
the sinner, who does convert him? Do the preachers convert him, or does 
he convert himself? We believe that if a person should go to any church 
in this country, proposing to become a member of it, and tell it that he 
had experienced no religion or conversion, but what had been produced 
by himself, or by preachers, or some other men, that ch urch would imme- 
diately inform him that it could not receive him as a member, nor consider 
him as a Christian. And if all Christians are so fully united in the opin- 
ion that God, and God only, can and does convert the sinner, why are there 
any objections to the doctrine of election ? God certainly foreknows and 
foreordains his own acts. He certainly predetermines whom he will con- 
vert; and this is what we mean by the doctrine of election. But perhaps, 
some may attempt to evade the argument by saying that God has revealed 
his word, and offered his sanctifying grace to the world : and that the sinner 
who is willing to accept the offer shall be saved. To this statement we fully 
agree. We believe that wherever the gospel is preached, every sinner 
who is willing to accept the offers of the gospel will be saved. But this 
does not change the ground of the argument: the question still returns 
upon U3, who makes the sinner willing to accept those offers ? That all 
men are not willing to receive the gospel when preached to them, is mat- 
ter of constant and lamentable experience. And has any man, or set of 
men, discovered any way or means, within the reach of human power,, 
by which sinners can be made willing to receive the gospel? if they have, 
they have made the greatest discovery in the world; or rather, they have 
made a discovery infinitely more important, than all other discoveries in 
the world put together. But there has been no such discovery. This 
willingness to receive the gospel, or to apply to God for his sanctifying 
grace, is the beginning of religion ; and nothing but the sovereign grace 
of God does or can give it. Will it then be asked, since God converts 
sinners, why does he not convert all sinners? This is a question which 
it behooves all Christians who acknowledge and pray for the converting 
grace of God to answer as much as us. But we cannot answer it. God 
Almighty has reasons worthy of himself for every thing he does, and for 
every thing he omits to do. But what those reasons are, we often can- 
not know : and particularly, why it is that he converts some, and leaves 
others unconverted, is not for us to determine. 

Having now, as we think, briefly established the doctrine of election, we 
shall proceed to make some observations on the general doctrine of the 
divine decrees. By the divine decrees we simply mean that plan which 
the infinite wisdom of God had in view when he created the world. We 
trust it will not be said that when God created the world he had no plan 
in view. We believe that no rational being ever undertook any impor- 
tant work without a plan. There was some end to be answered, some 
purpose to be accomplished, or some consequence to be effected by eve- 
ry important work that was ever undertaken by any rational being : and 
of course, to deny that God had a plan in view when he created the world 
would seem not only to deny his possession of infinite wisdom, but 
even of common rationality. We trust, therefore, that no person can 
be found who will deny that God had a plan in view when he created the 
world. Now this plan is the divine decrees; and the only question which 
remains, isywhether God had sufficient wisdom and power to execute his 



ptan, or decrees; or whether his plan has been defeated? If the di- 
vine plan has been defeated, when, and by whom, was it done? Was it 
defeated by the first introduction of sin and misery into the world ? But 
upon this supposition every subsequent scene of sin and misery brought 
into the world was another defeat ; and of course the divine plan has been 
the subject of violation and defeat in innumerable instances. Here is 
matter for the most serious consideration. If the plans of God have been 
so repeatedly defeated since the creation of the world, that is, in the 
course of six thofisandyears; how may these defeats be multiplied in the 
infinite course of our future existence ! Is not the supposition dishonora- 
ble to God? Does it not unsettle our confidence in the management of his 
affairs, and destroy all the hopes of the Christian? Does it not, in fact, 
render every thing unsafe, both in Earth and Heaven ? Angels fell from 
Heaven. If the introduction of sin on earth defeated the counsels of the; 
Almighty, the sin of angels was also a defeat. The truth is, once admit 
that the plans of God have been, or can be defeated, and there is no end 
to the consequences resulting from it ; consequences both dishonorable to 
God, and destructive of the hopes of the Christian, and of all the funda- 
mental principles of religion. Wedonotsay that our opponents admit 
tiiese consequences. We believe they do not admit them. But the con- 
sequences naturally arise from the case, and show the extreme danger of 
denying the divine decrees. 

It is thought by some that the divine decrees must destroy the moral a- 
gency ofman. Thiswedonot admit. We believe that man is a moral a gent; 
that his will is free; that the offers of the gospel are freely made to him ; 
and that lie possesses every power necessary to make him justly accoun- 
table for his actions. We are, in fact, willirg to carry the free will or 
moral agency of man, as far as. they can be carried, without defeating the 
counsels, or violating the plans of God ; and farther we cannot consent 
to go. 

K 

We trust that this exposition will relieve the doctrine before us from 
much of f he misrepresentation under which it has laboured. The divine 
decrees do not suppose that if a man be born to be saved, he shall be 
saved, let hirn do what he will. They do not make a man a machine, or 
destroy his moral agency. The proper question respecting our view of the 
divine decrees is this : whether free will or moral agency be of such a nature 
as necessarily to put it in the power of creatures to defeat the counsels or 
break the plans of the Deity. If such be the nature of free agency, it 
no doubt destroys the divine decrees: but it destroys, at the same time, 
the sovereignty of God, the hopes of the Christian, and all the motives 
and principles of religion : in fact, it renders every thing insecure, both 
on earth and in Heaven. Moral agency will doubtless exist in Heaven ; 
and if it -can break the plans of God, it can break his promises: so that 
the Christian is not only uncertain of reaching Heaven, but should he ar- 
rive at that happy world, must be uncertain of his continuance there. 
For this moral agency may produce as many revolutions in Heaven, con- 
trary to the divine will, as those who deny the divine decrees must sup- 
pose it has produced on earth. 


9 — 


It may be difficult, orindeed impossible, for us to understand how the Di- 
vine Being can govern a multitude of moral agents, so as to preserve his own 
wise plans from violation without restricting their moral agency. But 
because we cannot understand how this can be done, shall we pronounce 
it impossible for God to do it; and assert that because the human will is 
free, the plans of God are continually liable to defeat? We shall take one 
illustration out of hundreds which may be found in the sacred volume, to 
show that God can govern moral agents 60 as to accomplish his own wise 
purposes without restricting their moral agency. Joseph’s brethren ma- 
liciously took him into custody, and put him into a pit, with the design of 
preventing the accomplishment of his prophetic dreams. But the plan of 
God was to fulfil, those dreams. Here their plan w r as directly oppc sed to 
the plan of God. And yet, without restricting their freedom of action, 
God made their conduct directly instrumental in accomplishing his plan* 
and defeating theirs. With this example before us, we feel warranted 
in believing that God can use the free actions of men so as to accom- 
plish his purposes, even when those mea are most directly opposed to his 
purposes. 

It is asserted in our standards that “God foreordains whatsoever comes'' 
to pass.” This expression is objected to, as implying that God decrees 
the existence of sin. When we use the expression that God decrees sin, 
we simply mean that God determines to permit sin to exist ; and not that 
he tempts, much less that he forces or impels any one to sin. When 
God made man at first, he made him holy, and gave him sufficient power 
to perform his duty. But God fdflesaw that man w^ould sin, and did not 
determine, unavailingly, to prevent, his sinning. He determined to per- 
mit sin to take place ; and his thus determining to admit the existence of 
sin as a part of his plan is all that we mean by his decreeing sin. In the 
same way we believe that God foresaw 7 every tendency to sin that ever would 
arise amonghis creatures. Many of these tendencies to sin he restrains 
or defeats : but in some cases he permits the sinnner to take his. own 
course. It is thus, as we believe, that lie. “makes the w^rath of man, to 
praise him, and the remainder of that wraith lie restrains.” And we do 
not see how it is possible to view the subject in any other light, without 
limiting either the foreknowledge or the power of God in such a way as 
would make it impossible for him to govern the world. Shall we say that 
God foresaw the existence of sin and determined to prevent it, but could 
not? Or shall we say that he did not foresee it, and was, therefore, taken 
by surprise? We believe that no Christian would be willing to make ei- 
ther of these assertions. It seems, therefore, necessary to believe that' 
God foresaw sin, and for wise reasons, unknown to us, determined to per- \ 
mit man to abuse his liberty and commit sin. 

It has often been asserted, and we think, with propriety, that wffien the 
divine decrees are rightly understood, they produce no more difficulty 
as to our conceptions on this subject than divine foreknowledge. Fore- 
knowledge undoubtedly supposes the fixedness or certainty of events. If 
God foreknows that a thing will take place, that thing certainly must take 
place : and all the difficulty lies in reconciling the certainty or fixedness of 
events with the moral agency of man. To evade this difficulty, ho wever,Mr. 


— 10 -— 


Wesley and others, have told us that foreknowledge does not properly be- 
long to God; that indeed the knowledge of God is inf nite, comprehend- 
ing all events ; but that he does not view things in succession as past or 
future, but as continually and eternally present ; that with God all times 
are an’ eternal now. Whether this notion of the eternal presence of e- 
vents to the divine view 7 be correct or not, we shall not stop here to in- 
quire. But certainly this doctrine accomplishes nothing in the present 
argument. For according to this doctrine, the divine mind viewing all 
things as present at all times, must at this moment view as present the 
condemnation of every sinner who will be condemned at the day of 
judgment, although many of those sinners are not yet born. 

Dr. Adam Clarke, a commentator, too much followed by our oppo- 
nents, has resorted to another subterfuge, in order to avoid the difficulties 
attending this subject. He has denied the complete foreknowledge of 
God altogether. He believes that God could have foreknown every 
thing, if he had chosen ; but that he determined not to foreknow certain 
things; and that this determination afforded the occasion for the introduc- 
tion of sin and misery into the world. This scheme, as it appears to us, is the 
most erroneous and dangerous that has ever found admittance into any 
respectable part of the Christian church. Other schemes may impute 
weakness and ignorance to the Deity ; but this scheme seems to impute 
to him direct criminality. The plain meaning of it is that God Almighty 
imposed a voluntary ignorance on himself in the management of his own 
affairs, and that this voluntary ignorance has been the cause of incalcu- 
lable ruin among his creatures. Now God is the governor of the world. 
But in human governments, voluntary ignorance or neglect is a crime, of 
which the guilt must be measured by the consequences resulting from it. 
We cannot pursue this scheme any farther: we feel as if we wereitouch- 
ing upon blasphemy whilst handling this subject ; and we leave you to 
determine with what feelings the scheme ought to be rejected. 

We are persuaded that it would not be possible to give a full explana- 
tion of the divine decrees in the compass of a single letter. Our attention 
has been directed principally to two points : in the first place, to shew 
that the decrees of God are not inconsistent with the moral agen- 
cy and accountableness of man ; and in the second place, that when the 
doctrine of the divine decrees is properly understood, it cannot be denied 
without supposing the divine plan so completely liable to frustration and 
defeat as would make the standing of the Christian entirely uncertain, 
both in this life and the life to come. This last proposition is, we think* 
fully made out by the preceding observations; and it presents an alterna- 
tive on the denial of the decrees, in which we believe that no pious man 
can acquiesce. 

We shall next notice a part of our church regulations, on account of 
which we have been exposed to many severe, unfriendly, and as we think, 
unjustifiable attacks from the Methodist denomination. We mean that 
part of our system which relates to the support of the gospel ministry. 
We believe that reflecting men of nearly all denominations agree that un- 
less a gospel ministry be supportcd t , the gospel cannot be generally. 


- 11 - 


preached : and therefore to pursuadc any people to give up the euppoffc 
of their ministers is to persuade them to assist in the destruction of their 
own church. The Methodists are as fully aware of this fact as any other 
people; and np people in this country provide more punctually, or more 
liberally for the maintenance of their'preachers than they do. The manner 
of their provision, indeed, makes it less sensible, but not less substantial* 
They assign a sufficient maintenance for the preacher himself, for his 
tvife, and for each of his children; and this provision is often continued for 
many years after the preacher’s decease, and taken altogether, is a better 
support for a large family, than most of our ministers enjoy. 

Our plan is a very simple one, and perfectly open to the knowledge of 
the world. When the settlement of a minister is contemplated, an esti- 
mate is made of the sum necessary for his stipend. This sum is raised ei- 
ther by voluntary subscription or by pew-rent. Some members of the 
congregation, as trustees, take the subscription into their own hands for 
collection, and guarantee to the pastor such an amount out of it as can be 
safely promised. Here every thing is perfectly voluntary and open. And 
if it should sometimes happen that the trustees, rather than violate their 
promise to their pastor, should be obliged to coerce the litigious to 
comply with their voluntary engagements, this, although it seldom hap- 
pens in church affairs, is nothing more than what frequently occurs in all 
the free transactions of our country. 

The Methodists have made severe attacks upon this plan; but we doubt 
whether their own plan, or any other which can be devised, be not equal- 
ly open to objections. In the Methodist church, the expense necessary 
for supporting the gospel is often unequally distributed. Members par- 
ticularly situated are often taxed to a great amount by means of their 
hospitality; and we have heat’d some high estimates of the sums annually 
expended in this way. We have also heard great complaints against that 
part of the Methodist plan which taxes their slave members a dollar a 
year. It is true the sum is not large ; but thirty or forty years’ member- 
ship at that rate might draw from a poor slave more money than he 
should equitably contribute. But we shall not dwell upon these things : 
and indeed, we only mention them to shew that whilst our opponents are 
attacking us without mercy, they are also liable to attacks at home. We 
think that the itinerant plan of the Methodists, considered as a missionary 
system, is in the main a good one. But then we think a mere missionary 
system not competent to the entire edification of the church. It causes 
their clergy to ride too much and study too little to promise an enlighten- 
ed ministry. And indeed, the Methodists themselves, in cities and other 
places, where they are numerous, have fallen into the method of sup- 
porting their ministers by subscription, or perhaps by pew-rent, in the 
manner of other denominations. This, we think, makes it the more 
strange, that we should receive so much abuse for a plan known to be 
imitated by their own church, when in circumstances to justify the imi- 
tation. 

But at any rate, if our plan be wrong, the people have the power of cor- 
recting it* Our church government is not despotic. The people possess 


12 — 


the power of choosing the ministers, eiders, and all other officers of the' 
church; and of course they can apply any amendments to the method of 
maintaining their pastors which time shall discover to be necessary. 

A doctrine has lately sprung up in the world, or if anciently profess- 
ed, it w as only by the wildest sectaries, against which we would affec- 
tionately warn you. We mean the doctrine of sinless perfection in this 
life. We are aware that the New Testament writers sometimes use the 
word perfection; but at the same time they exhibit a marked difference 
between Christian perfection and sinless perfection. The propagators of 
the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life say that it is not only attain- 
able, necessary to salvation. Christians who believe them must, then, 
be in danger either of despair under a just senseoftheir imperfections, or of 
delusion and spiritual pride. They must be tempted to exclude their im- 
proper thoughts and deficient performance of duty, from the catalogue of 
the.ii sins, and to substitute the workings of blind enthusiasm and fanatic 
-zeal for the pure fervours of divine love, and strict obedienceto the precepts 
of the gospel. But the principal reasons why we consider this sinless per- 
fection as manifestly eontiary to the word of God are in the following : 

In the first place, the man who claims sinless perfection must entertain 
a very different opinion of himself from what the most pious men, who are 
held up as examples to us in the word of God, entertained of themselves. 
Job said, “1 abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Isaiah' said, 
“wo is me for I am undone ; because I am a man of unclean lips : — for 
mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” St. Paul, in the last 
stage ofhis Christian course, said that he had not attained, neither was 
he already perfect:” he“forgot those things which were behind, and reach- 
ed forth unto those things which were before.” When Paul was a Pharisee 
he thought himself perfectly without sin, and “as touching the righteous- 
nessofthelaw blameless;” but when he became a Christian, his views of the 
divine law and of himself, were entirely altered. In the second place, the 
man who claims sinless perfection is disqualified for using the Lord’s prayer 
which our Saviour taugjit his disciples, and of course required them all to 
use. F or in that prayer there is one petition in which we must pray con- 
tinually for the forgiveness of our trespasses. But in the third place, the 
Apostle John decides the whole question of sinless perfection in a very 
serious manner. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 
and the truth is not in us.” This determines the point with all who duly 
reverence the bible. It shews us that the man who professes to be so 
much superior in holiness to Job, Isaiah, and Paul, is actually under a 
delusion, which excludes all proper knowledge of saving truth. John 
indeed, elsewhere says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;” 
or literally translated, doth not make a business or trade of sin. But as 
this applies to tnat deliverance from sin which even the weakest Chris- 
tian obtains the moment he is regenerated, it gives no support to the doc- 
trine of sinless perfection in the present life. 

As the best security against error and danger of every kind, we would 
earnestly exhort to diligent and sincere self-examination. This is a duty 
often inculcated in scripture; and it is of indispensable necessity to all 
(Christians, but wore especially important to those who are just commence 


13 — 


ihg a religious life. The time when a person first indulges the hope of 
the gospel is, in general, the most important period of that person’s exis- 
tence. If that hope b*; built upon a wrong foundation, or admitted upon 
insufficient evidence, it is seldom dissipated until it is forever too late. It 
is a dangerous matter to suppose that mere joy, preceded by what, may 
be thought religious distress, is sufficient evidence of religion. Religious 
comfort, when genuine, must be accompanied with sincere watchfulness 
against sin, and with all holy resolutions, desires, and practice. We 
must look more to the habitual purpose ana tendency of the mind than to 
mere feeling, in order to ascertain our title to the lavor of God. 

“Itching ears; heaping to ourselves teachers or hearing the word of 
God from mere curiosity, is another evil against which the Apostle warns 
the church, as a thing extremely injurious to religion. We would not 
altogether condemn what is called occasional hearing, or the hearing of 
other denominations; but we believe that hearing the gospel from mere 
curiosity, without that reverence and close personal application which du- 
ty requires, is one of the greatest evils of the church in the present day. 
And just in proportion to the extent of the evil, and the injury it is effect- 
ing, is the difficulty of applying a remedy. General evils are so forti- 
fied by example as to keep themselves in countenance ; and we are una- 
wares led into the most offensive criminality, whilst we imagine that we 
are performing our duty. We believe that the kind of hearing just des- 
cribed is often carried so far as to subvert all the ends of the public ordi- 
nances of religion. 

We are afraid that two important duties are much neglected in the pre- 
sent day; and that the church greatly sniffers in consequence of that ne- 
glect. We mean the sanctification of'the Sabbath, and family religion. If 
professors of religion are in the habit of making unnecessary journies on 
the Sabbath, or spending apart of it in unnecessary visits, they are great- 
ly guilty of the violation of their duty and the neglect of their privileges. 
The due sanctification of the Sabbath is necessary to the maintenance of 
family religion : and without family religion, which includes the pious 
education of children, the church will not prosper. Families are the ele- 
ments of all societies, whether civil or ecclesiastical; and if pure religion 
do not exist in families, it cannot be expected to exist in the church. We 
would earnestly recommend to Christian families to meet together on ev- 
ery Sabbath evening, and spend some time in catechising and reading the 
word of God, or some other book of religious instruction. We believe 
that such exercises ought not to be excluded, in common times, even by 
the desire of multiplying the public meetings of religion. Religion often 
receives a sanction in young minds from parental authority and example, 
which cannot be obtained from any other source. 

Finally, brethren, we must observe that the spirit of slumber which 
pervades our churches seems to have fallen upon us at a most unsea- 
sonable juncture. The Christian world is at present greatly moved. In 
innumerable places, Christians are active, both in maintaining the cause 
of religion at home, and extending its influence abroad. The time seems 
to be approaching, if it have not already arrived, when the Head of the 


. — 14 - 


library OF CONGRESS * 



church will collect his true followers into an efficient body, and employ them 
effectually in multiplying the victories of the cross. It is also true that 
in the present day, the cause of irreligion and vice is advancing. If the 
good seed of the word is sown extensively, we know that wherever the 
church is asleep, the enemy also sows his tares. It would seem that the 
kingdoms of light and darkness are both collecting their forces for some 
mighty conflict. And in this war, there can be no neutrality. “He that 
is not with me is against me,” is the maxim of our blessed Saviour. Per- 
haps few churches in Christendom are more loudly called upon by the 
voice of Providence than our own. Not only are our spiritual concerns 
languishing at home ; but we are surrounded by a large region of desola- 
tion, where “the people perish for lack of knowledge.” Tlie interests of 
our uwn families unite with those of more distant friends in calling upon 
us to awake out of sleep, and act our part as the friends of Zion. May 
the spirit of the living God enforce the admonition ; and excite us to act 
as a people feelingthat“we are not our own, but are bought with a price,” 
even with the blood of the everlasting covenant. 

“And now, brethren, we commend you to God, and to the word of his 
grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance &- 
mong all them who are sanctified. ” 

SAMUEL HOUSTON, Moderators 
FRANCIS MTARLAND, Stated Clerk, 


